Congressional Research Service Misses the Point on Defense Budget

A soldier of the 2nd cavalry regiment participates in a virtual combat training on the Reconfigurable Vehicle Tactical Trainer (RVTT) at Rose Barracks in Vilseck-Grafenwoehr January 25, 2012.

The recently released Congressional Research Service (CRS) report “A Historical Perspective on ‘Hollow Forces’” misses two important points in its analysis of the defense budget, impacts of the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, and the usage of the term “hollow force.”

First, the report does not even attempt to analyze impacts of the sequestration process under the BCA. Second, the report fails to address structural deficiencies within the Department of Defense’s budget itself.

While the BCA imposes about $600 billion in cuts to a broadly defined defense category of spending, the sequestration process would apply $500 billion or more in deficit reduction to the defense account over the nine-year period covering fiscal years 2013–2021. This process will apply defense budget cuts in addition to those imposed by the spending caps. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, reductions at this level would lead to the smallest ground force since 1940; a fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915; the smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force; the smallest civilian workforce since the Department of Defense became a department; and about a 20 percent reduction in investment accounts (procurement plus research, development, testing, and evaluation), which could lead to cutbacks in many programs, large and small.

All these reductions are front-loaded and therefore will have significant immediate implications for readiness, modernization programs, and research and development. Under budget caps, the FY 2013 defense budget will be 18 percent lower than the President’s FY 2011 request. After the sequestration process, the FY 2013 defense budget will be 25 percent less than the President’s FY 2011 request. All these cuts are coming on the top of cuts and cost-efficiency savings made since President Obama took office. More than 50 major weapons programs, at a value of more than $300 billion, were already cut or delayed. Before the BCA took effect, the Administration told the military to cut almost $600 billion more over the next 15 years.

The second problem with the CRS report is that it does not consider lessening resources available for modernization (procurement and research, development, testing, and evaluation) within the Department of Defense’s (DOD) budget. For example, the department spent more than $226 billion on modernization in FY 1985 (in FY 2012 dollars). This was 39 percent of its total budget. By way of comparison, $188.4 billion was to go to these accounts under President Obama’s original budget request for FY 2012. The level of modernization funding is estimated to decline by about 23 percent over the four-year period. In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, the decline will be roughly $54 billion (in FY 2012 dollars), or about 29 percent. By 2016, modernization funding could fall to about 26 percent of total DOD funding for its core program.

The CRS report concludes that “the use of the term ‘hollow force’ is inappropriate under present circumstances.” It also points out that in several ways, the challenges the military faced in the post-Vietnam years differed from those the services confronted during the Clinton presidency. While that might be true, Heritage’s James Carafano observes:

…how a military goes hollow is not as important as the fact that the nation is left with a force that cannot do the job as advertised. What is critical to understand is that if a military can’t field trained and ready forces; conduct current missions; and prepare for future threats, it is inadequate. With the Pentagon facing a dramatic reduction in capability, it is irresponsible to suggest that this isn’t something worth worrying about.

Congress must take steps to stop the sequestration process as soon as possible.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Join The Discussion

Why is the Heritage Foundation sounding like a bunch of disturbed and frustrated Keynesians? Defense spending should not be immune to fiscal prudency! For over 3 decades, the GOP, with the backing of Heritage and AEI, have decimated the free market economy with a Keynesian philosophy disguised as needed military spending. Heck, you guys are even running out of boogeyman to scare the American public with to go along with your big government spending. Yes, I do mean big government, since most people think that Heritage is for smaller government, which of course is not true.

The Department of Defense should not be immune to fiscal prudency but it did not cause the nation's fiscal problems. Military spending should be derived from missions that we expect our men and women in uniform to fulfill. Gutting the budget and then coming up with a strategy to fit the budget is a receipe for disaster.

We refuse to address our Defense requirements from a holistic perspective and continue to segment our so called needs based on what role the services have and their slice of the pie. The issue is what are our threats and what assets can be brought to bear to defeat those threats and defend our nation. We appear no longer to combine our forces to fight wars and enemy's but continue to fragment our people and systems. Instead of flexibility we insist on specialization a construct that is not only expensive but one that no longer serves us well. How many planes,ships, tanks, missiles, drones and boots on the ground do we need, to do what is the question. We are in the 21st Century but want to pay for and deploy, people and systems really no different than the early 20th Century. The so called Industrial Base is business to support the business of defense and a means to and end and not the other way around.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.